Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 22 October 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Pre-Graves goddess threesomes

The section Pre-Graves goddess threesomes in Triple Goddess has a {{cn}} tag on virtually every clause. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, but if anyone would like to take a crack at cleaning it up before I take WP:BOLD action, be my guest. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have provoked a burst of referencing, which is good, because it would be a real shame to lose that material if it is valid. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, the "sources" added are all primary sources with the 'interpretation' of them is being done by an editor. I'd leave the section up for a while, there is some potentially citable content there hidden amongst the nonsense. Any help properly citing it would be appreciated! Davémon (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if some new voices would join the discussion at Talk:Triple Goddess, things seem to be going in circles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've barged in WP:BOLDly. I just don't see why the the triple goddess and the the notion of truine goddesses in general all have to be shoved into that one article. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I'm losing patience. This thing is being sat upon by a WP:SPA who is talking the thing to death. Can someone uninvolved care to take a look and see whether we are off-base in resisting him? Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. If Sizzle wants to improve coverage on triple goddesses in general, why cannot he do so in a straightforward manner and without pointless disputes on the Neopagan article? --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock

Unsourced BLP about a hero doctor of the alternative health movement. The section that describes his battles with the FDA doesn't seem very balanced. He's an Associate Editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, so definitely very fringe.Fences&Windows 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone is claiming that as this guy has written 3 non-notable books he doesn't need to be notable, and is adding references to the article which are sourced to ... wait for it ... the articles talk page! Which features the famous Nancy Merkle!! And the subject himself (or so the IPs claim) has also posted a long diatribe on the rather awful talk page. Help needed to fix this! Should it go to AfD? Is he notable? Verbal chat 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should wholesale transwiki all our articles about alternative health practioners, conspiracy theorists and assorted crackpots into Wiki4Cam? Fences&Windows 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This Guardian article is one source that briefly mentions Blaylock. Asking for WP:RS, as Verbal just did, seems to be the appropriate way to tackle this issue. Clearly, the article in its present state would be an AfD case.  Cs32en  20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How is a person a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. Fences&Windows 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not being obtuse, serious question, how can this board consider the biography of a real human being to be a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My medical knowledge doesn't extend much farther than first aid so I would not be appropriate to review it and it may very well be just fine. However this article: Excitotoxicity is strongly connected to Blaylock and presents the subject matter of the article as fact (it could very well be fact, again I don't have the background to really make statements to that) With that being said, it might be good for somebody with some serious medical expertise to give it a look over and confirm whether it's scientifically supported assertions or a fringe theory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaylock's recent work on nutrition etc. places him in the scientific and medical fringe, whether or not he's correct in his claims. Proponents of fringe theories should be discussed here. Fences&Windows 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware that his theories place him in the scientific and medical fringe, and I see nowhere a cite or statement which of his theories is considered so. The right place to discuss a biography of a living person is Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, regardless of what they are "proponents" of.86.3.142.2 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure you his theories are fringe, hence this noticeboard is appropriate. The BLP noticeboard would also be appropriate, but this noticeboard is more specialised towards fringe theories and proponents, while the BLP noticeboard is more geared towards breaches of the BLP policy. One of the problems with this article is there is no evidence yet that he is notable, and the article should probably be deleted. Verbal chat 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am not assured. I see no evidence that his theories are fringe, and with respect, either of us assuring each other is no substitute for evidence. I understand your logic for putting people on a fringe theory notice board but respectfully disagree - as I believe compartmentalisation of overview leads to systemic bias as I believe is demonstrated when one looks at the earlier comments in the thread, which all assume guilt of fringe without any evidence. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of his notability.86.3.142.2 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then please provide WP:RS and address the notability issue on the talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This Guardian article indicates that Blaylock's viewpoints are fringe with regard to the scientific debate, which is what WP policy refers to. There may be other sources, but in the absence of them, this is a reliable source that is clearly sufficient to characterize Blaylock's viewpoint as a viewpoint that has fringe status with regard to WP policy.  Cs32en  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source, I can understand your position now. The paper you quote is from 2004 and says

But popular opinion has travelled - spectacularly - in the opposite direction to science. By the early eighties, fuelled by books like Russell Blaylock's Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills, MSG's name was utter mud. Google MSG today, and you'll find it blamed for causing asthma attacks, migraines, hypertension and heart disease, dehydration, chest pains, depression, attention deficit disorder, anaphylactic shock, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and a host of diverse allergies.

It is making a bit of leap (WP:OR) to say he has "fringe status" based on 'popular opinion's spectacular travelling away from science' as couched in the journalist's opinion. The source does not show Blaylock's position on MSG at all, or if it itself is non-mainstream, just that his book was a spur against MSG. Even then, the article continues

However, there remains a body of respected nutritionists who are sure MSG causes problems - especially in children. And parents listen. Most doctors who offer guides to parents qualify their warnings about MSG - it may cause problems, it has been anecdotally linked with disorders. But public figures like the best-selling nutrition guru Patrick Holford are powerful advocates against MSG. He's sure the science shows that MSG causes migraines and he is convinced of the dangers of the substance to children, particularly in the child-grabber snacks like Monster Munch and Cheesy Wotsits.

If I were to WP:OR that myself I would say "Respected nutitionists and most medical doctors warn about MSG" but that is actually closer to the source. I note a more recent article from the same paper, attributed to the BMJ as listing MSG as one of the common things that can trigger a migraine attack. Whereas MSG may have been dismissed recently as not being the cause of 'Chinese restaurant sydrome', Blaylock's concerns were not that it ever did.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article indicates that it very likely is a fringe viewpoint (theories that "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", WP:FRINGE); it is not a proof that Blaylock's views are fringe. However, there is, to my knowledge, no default assumption that a particular theory would be not fringe, and as we would prefer to err on the side of caution, I'd say it's sufficient for making the preliminary determination that Blaylock's views are to be considered fringe and that WP:FRINGE thus applies to the article. A single mention in one article is not enough to meet the notability criteria anyway, and additional secondary sources would very likely contain further information that can help to clarify the status of his theories and hypotheses. In the unlikely event that there would be enough sources to meet WP:N, but no further information on the status of his theories, we would probably have to quote the relevant part of the guardian article verbatim, so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions about its meaning.  Cs32en  00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the source does not say what you are saying it says, using anything that amounts to 'likely pointing to being fringe' is utterly unacceptable in BLP. None of the information in the article refers to fringe science, the information in the article refers to a person's biography and is adequately and appropriately sourced. As I noted on the talk page, there is a wealth of information out there when you trawl, most of it, though, wants money to view the data, so I have deliberately chosen to use only those pieces which are free.86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating to write in the article itself that (some) views of Blaylock are fringe, but that, based on the available information, we should classify the article, or the part of the article that deals with these views, as falling under the WP:FRINGE guideline. If there is a (permanent) article on Blaylock, we will very likely have further information on this question, and we need not say that his views are "fringe", we can (always depending on the actual information from appropriate sources) characterize his views as "supported by a minority", "minority viewpoint", "differing from the established theory" or whatever would seem most adequate. Many of these terms do not violate WP:BLP guidelines (and "fringe" also would not, if sources clearly indicate that the views are unambiguously fringe).  Cs32en  01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that this article has been nominated for deletion. Verbal chat 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How to properly acknowledge a fringe theory?

If a fringe theory appears in an article, should the fact that it is fringy, and the current mainstream academic view of the theory be consigned to a footnote, or should it appear in the main copy of the article? Davémon (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following:

• Always in the text, not in a footnote.
• Always refer to the relevant article with a link, and state that it is a specific viewpoint.
• Depending on the circumstances, describe the majority viewpoint.
• Depending on the circumstances, use "minority viewpoint" or a more specific description that clearly characterizes the viewpoint as a viewpoint held by a minority. The term "fringe" may sound dismissive rather than encyclopedic (my personal viewpoint), so I would be reluctant to use it, but this also probably depends on the circumstances.  Cs32en  20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So fringe=minority, mainstream=majority ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Always with reference to the relevant scientific community. Minority viewpoints should be characterized as minority viewpoints, while some fringe viewpoints may in fact best be described as "singular" viewpoints, if they a propagated by a single proponent.  Cs32en  20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this is something we can or should make firm and fast rules about. Some Fringe theories do not even merit mention in other articles (per WP:UNDUE), while others do. Of the ones that are mentioned in other articles, sometimes it is best to clearly note that it is a fringe theory, and at other times it is best to phrase things with more subtlety. How to phrase things in articles is really a matter of consensus between the editors working on the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(← outdent) Since y'all are discussing here what I brought up there, I'll quote myself and hope for an answer here:

• "I wish WP:Fringe specifically said whether editors may or may not introduce the word fringe in an article when it isn't found in any source. IMO if something is decidedly non-notable fringe we leave it out, otherwise we call it minority."

Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to take the discussion of Fringe theories on a case by case, article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the specific situation is very important, and that editors thus should make decisions on a case by case basis. However, guidelines may contain guidance on (a) which aspects should be taken into account when discussion a specific case (b) the range of possible solutions applicable to most cases.  Cs32en  21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all points raised. I think Cs22ens outline is a good one. Formal guidelines should only be based on already formed general consensus, with an aim to aid editors in arriving at a conclusion quicker. I would say that the phrasing should be taken as verbatim as possible from at least one of the mainstream sources which are critiquing the fringe theory, avoiding the editorial judgement of using the phrase 'fringe' or 'minority' (unless the critiquing source does). Strong or emotive language (even from highly respected experts in the field) should probably be avoided! Davémon (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Context should also be important. E.g. the article about (say) Robert Graves's The White Goddess should (and does) have a section on criticism of that work. This needn't be replicated in the text body of every article that even mentions that book; it would be redundant, and require maintaining every separate copy. A footnote and/or wikilink — e.g., Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception. — should suffice in that situation. Also note that this does not put Misplaced Pages in the position of declaring Graves's work either "fringe" or wrong (or right); this only says it was "criticized" (objectively true), and points to where those criticisms are quoted and cited. That leaves this encyclopedia a "fair broker" of ideas, not an advocate. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The "redundancy" concept does not sit well with the idea that minority/fringe views should be explained as such where they are talked about in detail, which is clearly beneficial so not to mislead average reader into thinking wikipedia endorses a minority view. Relying on wikilinks and footnotes isn't quite enough to get the message across, some acknowledgement in the main body of the article is preferable. Misplaced Pages should be a "fair broker" of ideas as they are reported by the mainstream academia, subjects like 911 conspiracy theories, alien abduction, prehistorical matriarchal societies, should not be treated as equal with mainstream historical and scientific narratives. I agree, using the words used by the mainstream sources that critique a fringe theory is the right way of approaching this. Davémon (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two points to clarify here. (1) "where they are talked about in detail" doesn't mean "everywhere they are mentioned or alluded to", e.g. in a short dependent clause of a sentence. (2) "should be explained as such" can be done very briefly in such mentions/allusions by adding (say) the word "controversial" and either a footnote or a wikilink to the detailed coverage — rather than inserting a lengthy argument that breaks the narrative and swings the whole sentence out of balance. I have in mind the one-line sentence with a four-word dependent clause:

According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.

... which became:...

According to the Robert Graves whose work on Greek Myth classicist Micheal Grant CBE considered to be "refashioned after own images" and has been characterised as "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" by academics such as Richard Buxton and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology ; Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.

...adding two lines of text to the four-word dependent clause, and overshadowing what the sentence was actually about. Adding just "the controversial or "the controversial" before Graves's name wouldn't have been so obtrusive, but still would have given fair warning — perhaps even more clearly than that long text.

Incidentally, the idea that Kore (the maiden) is not Demeter's daughter, but Demeter's own younger self, was discussed much earlier than Graves, in 1896, by Lewis Richard Farnell in The Cults of the Greek States, volume 3, p.121. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem in this example is simply poor writing... The material could be rewriten as...

According to the Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess. Graves's theory, however, is controvercial. Academics such as Richard Buxton have characterised Graves's work as "refashioned after own images" and "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology ;

... and it would be both acceptable and accurate. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's text is an improvement (except for the spelling!), but I wonder if it would be better to cut out the sentence "Graves's theory, however, is controversial." The following sentence, cited to Buxton, seems sufficient to establish that Graves' opinions aren't widely shared--although I actually think Graves' views are quite popular, or at least many people seem to have views of Demter that are similar to his, even if they're not directly inspired by his work. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, so there we have it, clear as crystal: "Graves's opinions are not widely shared, though his views are quite popular, or at least many people have similar views even if they're not directly inspired by his work." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

... I'm hoping you were being sarcastic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, who was being sarcastic? Anyway, Sizzle, I don't think it's that hard to understand what I was saying--Graves' views are not widely shared in academia, especially among people who study ancient Greece and Rome, but his ideas have had impact in the popular sphere. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Buxton's sentence establishes that Graves's opinions are not shared by Buxton. Each of the critics presumably expressed his own view. Whether academia (or the lay population) in general agreed more with the critics than with Graves is not in evidence just from quoting the critics. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sizzle, you are not making a whole lot of sense here. Please make an effort to separate academic opinion on historical Demeter from modern literary or pop culture references to Demeter. I submit that this is a problem of section scope. The whole Graves discussion should be removed from the "Demeter and Persephone" section (which should focus on academic literature on the Eleusian mysteries), and put in a new "reception in modern literature" section. Grave's book is perfectly notable, but it isn't notable because it contributes to the scholarly study of ancient religion. It is notable, as the The White Goddess article points out, because it "remains a major source of confusion about the ancient Celts and influences many un-scholarly views of Celtic paganism" and because it has "misled many innocent readers with his eloquent but deceptive statements about a nebulous goddess in early Celtic literature". This makes Graves a perfect addition to an "in popular culture" section, but his WP:DUEness really stops there.--dab (𒁳) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic opinion is not monolithic. Some of that criticism is quoted/paraphrased from an essay by Michael Pharand, who himself was quoting it but then disagreed with it. FYI, The White Goddess article points all that out only because I moved the text to that article from Triple Goddess. It is appropriate to point all that out in the article on the book, which is why I moved it there. That done, it needn't all be said again everywhere the book is mentioned: we can wikilink to it with a brief summary comment like "Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception." ... Which is precisely what I did.
Re Demeter: Graves is not the only person who has ever referred to her as part of a triple goddess; however, he is the person who popularized the idea, which makes him (and the book) worthy of mention there. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that academic opinion is not monolithic. I should hope it is not. This is no excuse for discussing Demeter in terms of Graves. Graves is relevant indeed for popular opinion, but he is completely irrelevant for academic opinion. I am not sure what you are trying to do with these articles. It's ok to include the criticism in the White Goddess article, as you did, but at the same time, The White Goddess is also extremely relevant to the (neopagan) Triple Goddess article, while all of this is perfectly irrelevant at the Demeter article, which I thought was what is under discussion here. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia

Alfred de Grazia

Consider stubbing this article. Lacks third-party independent sources. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 128.59.171.155 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. yeah, I'm going to stub this down for now, and see about some sources later. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it about this time last year, and Science Apologist also put in useful work. Subject's notable as a political scientist, and the books on political science are worth listing. Later he became a fan of Velikovsky, and I suppose that is a notable fact about him, but it doesn't need too much detail. User:Amideg is the subject or close to him, so the article continues to be dogged by COI. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he does seem notable. I'd say this can be re-written with an eye towards his works, but the way it was when I found it... blah. I'm expecting to get a heaping helping of flak when the interested parties notice, but I might be able to get some more relevant citations by then. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you live in some parallel Misplaced Pages. Or what do you mean by "notable"? The article as it stands indicates no trace of notability. Just whence do you take your knowledge that he "does seem to be notable"? Nothing currently in the article I am sure (wrote a book, founded some sort of commune in 1970 which fell apart in 1972) -- please note that "notability" does not mean "can be googled". It means significant coverage in quotable, independent third party sources. Where are these sources? If they aren't forthcoming, simply delete the article, especially if it is a WP:BLP. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He did write quite a lot of books on political science, and they looked to me like standard textbooks but I'll look again. WP:PROF should be our guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott

David Talbott

Consider stubbing this article. Most of the sources are promotional and directly connected to the author. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 64.206.236.98 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Unlike the de Grazia article above, this one is well-sourced and appears neutrally written. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

that's after I tweaked the intro into not going on about just how radical Talbott is. --dab (𒁳) 14:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum?

What the heck's going on in this user's contribution history? Both the articles and the edits need examination. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Scratching around from this user's history, there seem to be a number of rather fringey-looking quantum/mind-related articles that may be in need of closer scrutiny:

• Quantum mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Quantum mind/body problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orch-OR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (aka Roger Penrose' "quantum mind theory", probably the worst of the lot)

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is an article devoted to documenting the misuse of the word "quantum" within fringe science and alternative medicine? It's got to be one of the most misused terms. There are plenty of examples (including articles here), with V & RS of the type allowable for an article on a fringe subject. Sources from believers and from skeptics would be allowable. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I see the problem here. Quantum mind/body problem is a survey of philosophical thinking on the apparently anomalous position of the conscious/sentient observer in some interpretations of quantum mechanics; quantum mind is an overview of various theories that invoke quantum mechanics as an explanatory mechanism for mind, concoiusness and free will; and the most notable quantum mind theories are detailed in individual articles such as Orch-OR. Minority views, maybe, but those articles seem to be balanced, NPOV and well sourced. What exactly are your concerns ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For some background you might also want to look here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mind/body problem seems to have little but original synthesis. Apart from mentioning Hugh Everett, it doesn't tell you anything about how quantum mechanics has been regarded in philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think quantum mind/body problem breaks WP:SYNTH because it is not advancing a position. It is just a survey article like history of quantum mechanics or philosophy of mind. It summarises a whole bunch of attributed views, from Einstein to Dennet. Somewhat unevenly written, perhaps, but not a problem article. I still don't see what Brangifer's concerns are with the three article he listed (quantum mysticism is another kettle of fish entirely ...). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not advancing a position? It's purely the view of Wigner. Which might be notable enough to warrant summarising somewhere (probably in the article on Wigner), but not like this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not how the article reads to me. The term "quantum mind/body problem" may have been coined by Wigner, but the article presents the views of several scientists and philosophers on this topic. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It collates the views of several scientists and philosophers, but they were usually not directly addressing this topic. So it's synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just have different interpretations of what the article is trying to say. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

??? I didn't list three articles. Please refactor. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Shadow people

An editor trying to connect Stephen Hawking's remarks on dark matter to paranormal beliefs. The article itself is based on very marginal sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the whole article appears to be nothing more than presentation and synthesis of (mostly fringe) WP:PRIMARY sources. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Dargaville

Dargaville's article involves a number of highly fringy things he's involved with or promotes. The article has quite a few issues, from style and grammar to lacking cites, to bordering on advertising. I had a go at trimming the fringe a bit, but there's plenty left to do. (much of it was written in the tone of an unquestioning believer, stating as fact things like Dargaville's meditation techniques being able to cure cancer, or his physics of mind 'validating' teleportation and "alien space travel")

Point is, I don't honestly know where to start with the numerous issues, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those more experienced and see if anyone wants to work on it, rewrite it, ignore it, or nominate it for deletion. ;)

Hatchetfish (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've sent it to AFD as third party interest seems decidedly lacking. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research an attack page?

Colonel Warden‎ (talk · contribs) recently nominated Reincarnation research for speedy delete as an attack page. More input and eyes requested on this and related articles (Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker, Reincarnation, and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type). Verbal chat 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't canvass speedy deletions. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that this is not the first time you've done this. Do not post requests here in this way. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is an appropriate noticeboard and the speedy template was removed before I posted here - there is no ongoing deletion debate. I have never canvassed an AfD or speedy. Verbal chat 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are not Colonel Warden's keeper. Let him make his own mistakes and defend them. Trying to delete that page via speedy deletion was... bizarre. Fences&Windows 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's emphasize the key point: posting to noticeboards is not canvassing, ever. That's what noticeboards are for. It might be forum shopping, depending on how it is done, but it should never be characterized as canvassing. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the POV tag as it doesn't seem justified. The resons given include that it is too skeptical (like the preponderance of RS) and that the lead summaries the article, including the fact that belief in reincarnation has been linked to trauma. Verbal chat 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Add borderline coatracking at Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect to your list of related problem articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Web Bot

An article about a software program claiming to predict the future including 9/11, the Columbia accident and 2012. I would probably go and afd the article as being not notable. Or we can wait for October 25 for its next prediction to see if it comes true or not. --McSly (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It has received significant coverage in the press, so I'm not sure AfD is appropriate. I've done some sourcing, still needs improvement. Fences&Windows 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Herb usage 2

Given its connection to various fringe theories, people on here may be interested in this AFD. Shoemaker's Holiday 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pumapunku‎

If anyone has time and an interest in this, there are quite a few sources on the talk page that could be used to improve the dating section which at the moment is biased towards a fringe viewpoint. I am not around much for a while and don't have time myself. There's also a long forum style post on the talk page and although maybe it should be removed I think editors should avoid responding in kind, we all know talk pages aren't forums. Some of the links on the talk page can't be used themselves but lead to good sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected link. Moreschi (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This sentence, sourced to an article in National Geographic, sounded bizarre. "Ceramic artifacts depict imagery of warriors, masked with puma skulls, decapitating their enemies and holding trophy skulls, adorned with belts of human heads with their tongues torn out." First, what was adorned with the belts, the warriors or the trophy skulls? Second, how do you show in a ceramic artifact that a tongue is torn out? I'm not even sure what a depiction, in ceramic, of warriors masked with puma skulls would look like. How reliable is National Geographic for archaeology? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

More likely NG has been rendered inaccurately. And this dating issue sounds rather worrying. I need to look into it but 15,000 BC sounds rather implausible. Antiquity frenzy anyone? Particularly when that seems to be partially sourced to German astronomy (huh?) from the 1930s (dated research by now, methinks). Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just double-checked that. Astronomy. What? Moreschi (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename of List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

This article has just been boldly renamed without discussion. Probably deserves some debate. At the very least the text needs changing to match to the new title of Outline of pseudoscience. (I prefer the very old title without the silly extra verbiage) Verbal chat 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

so The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is at it again. One of the more ill-advised mass-editors I have come across, and one of the most resistent to good advice and criticism. Needs more eyes watching their contributions history.

this chap insists on littering article namespace with absolutely abominable content forks. Check out his Outline of chocolate or Outline of Iceland (you'd expect a description of the island's coastline) or Outline of water, etc. He copy-pastes the lede from the developed article, and then proceeds to posting a sort of "list of loosely connected articles", looking as if it was just the wikilinks ripped from the deveoloped article by means of a very short shell script.

this WP:OOK thing isn't pertinent to WP:FRINGE, but "The Transhumanist" and his renitent attitude has caused major disruption and lost man-hours. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested that the proposed policy Misplaced Pages:Outlines should be marked as failed due to the controversy and resistance found across the mainspace. See the talk page for my suggestion that it be marked as failed. Verbal chat 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

so it's just an essay now. If there was ever an essay that deserved being marked as "failed", it's this one. Either that, or userify as one editor's personal ramblings. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Telugu

We have a fresh Indian racial drama, with Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) bent on declaring "Aryan" anything connected to the Telugu people or the Telugu language. The factual background of this is that Andhra Pradesh was indeed an Indo-Aryan/Dravidian contact zone in the Middle Ages. Check out the contribution history to see how this is turned into the usual confused racial nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll be watching out in case this guy tries any further nonsense. Moreschi (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: This IP is the same guy. Moreschi (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Recommended for your pleasure: Orpheus's passport!

There is, or was, a dispute at Orpheus over whether he can be classified as Thracian, Greek, or Macedonian. See Talk:Orpheus, the last revision before I swung the axe, my talk page, and even ANI. Weirder and weirder, it appears that Bulgarian Orpheus is even something of a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. This stuff applied to Alexander the Great was weird enough, but when applied to a mythical figure is simply frightening.

Read and weep. Moreschi (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

probably a good candidate for wp:lame Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew that Orpheus was Goa'uld. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO! Seriously though, added page to watch. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Having a passport no doubt helped him get in and out of Hades. Don't die without your passport, and make sure you're buried with it! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is proof the passport must have been Greek, because there's no way Charon would have taken any Macedonian passports as valid. Euridice, an alien, unfortunately got held up at the immigration desk. Moreschi (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, he was a Kamboja. I have 278 references to demonstrate that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not even go there. ('Sides, everybody knows that Orpheus was an Irish / Scottish Canadian) :p Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin attn required on Talk:Parapsychology

Rodgarton (talk · contribs) is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please? Verbal chat 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks for him. Moreschi (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that he's since been indef'd. Verbal chat 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe or significant minority viewpoint?

There is a debate going on here about what constitutes a fringe viewpoint and what constitutes a significant minority viewpoint. Namely: is it sufficient to be able to name a few notable proponents of an idea (even though they may be notable for other things) for this idea to be considered a "significant minority viewpoint"? Opinions are most welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

the significant minority viewpoint needs to be debated, and its existence needs to be recognized, in peer-reviewed academic literature. It doesn't matter so much who or how many people propose the view, it matters what impact it makes in academia. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget that the debate moves on. What is the mainstream at one point may not be so for ever. Consider whether that can be addressed by using a chronological structure, or by finding scholarly histories of the contentions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lord, what a mess. This is one of those times where we really just have to make a judgement call and hope it all goes well, because it is an ongoing debate and the tertiary sources we could base meta-descriptions on haven't caught up with the research. My general impression is that the "hereditarian" position on race and intelligence - that is, a position that posits a 50/50 role between genetics/environment in explaining race and intelligence data - isn't "significant minority" and isn't "fringe" either. Probably "small minority" gets closest, if anything does. It's not a widespread view but evidently there is a small community of reputable people out there who go for it. As to what impact they make in academia - in a topic such as this naturally quite a lot. The type of impact is a different question altogether. Moreschi (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is funny, sad and interesting to me that wikipedia is trying to purge articles that are 'fringe'. Misplaced Pages is quickly coming just a run of the mill encyclopedia, like any other. The vision of what wikipedia could have been, ie: an encyclopedia that anyone can add to, is simply gone....this sux, i didn't get the memo until a few days ago. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs)

No... Misplaced Pages does not try to "purge" articles that are 'fringe'... this policy is explicitly about which fringe topics should have articles, and how to write them. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Chronic Fatigue, ME, and Viruses

BBC website has a story about a possible link between virus and ME. This will be picked up by many people. There are some people who think ME/CFS can be effectively treated with graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy. There are other people who say that CFS is different to ME, and that you can tell the difference because "real" (their words, not mine) ME doesn't respond to CBT or graded exercise. The latter camp seem to say that the illness has no psychological component (and also seem to say that a psychological component means it's not a "real" illness.) It's this group of people who'll seize the reports of a possible link with the virus and they may distort the findings. Here's a linky. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8298529.stm 87.115.68.252 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more than a "possible" link, the story is based on this Science article, which is pretty compelling. This is a major development, and the story is going to be in flux for a while -- we'll just have to handle it as best we can. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no fringe theory. Viral or other physical causes of CFS have never been fringe theories. Psychiatric treatment being effective and an underlying cause being triggered by an infection, autoimmunity etc. are not incompatible, but the debate has been wrongly polarised into "All in the mind" vs "Proper illness". Fences&Windows 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

just mentioning that there have been additional extensive stories on this in major conventional medicine sources. The problem is going to be keeping it from being used as a vindication of all fringe theories whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Freelimbic

Not sure if this entirely qualifies as fringe, but the authors autiobio makes me think so. Relevant articles are:

• David A. Kaiser
• Nicholas Dogris
• Penijean Rutter
• and Human-suit which I redirected to Human suit (original here).

The first article in the list seems wacky, which combined with the self-promotion angle made me bring it up here. The editor in question has also been removing tags (improvement ones and CSDs) that I and other editors placed. Rather than get into an edit war, wanted to let other eyes take a look. Best, --Bfigura 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oddly, this has gotten less overtly fringy after templates were placed. Compare the old version to the current David A. Kaiser. Weird, but still worth a look I think. --Bfigura 04:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't solve the massive COI and notability issues with this editor's contributions. I've prodded the articles listed above that weren't already there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

something to watch out for

Nothing major, but another rather amusing floating IP pushing the bizarre theory that various Indian languages are connected to Finno-Ugric: this proves, apparently, that the PIE urheimat is to be located in Scandinavia, and that "the Nazis were right after all". See contributions. Moreschi (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Geolocates to Finland. I can't recall ever having seen a Scandinavian nationaist take on this issue before. Something of a first, eh? Moreschi (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally a nationalist crank who is not from the Balkans, the Near East or India! My faith in humanity is restored :op --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You've forgotten the Netherlands...Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And England vs Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean British Isles vs. "the Celtic archipelago that shall not be named". But that's not crankery, that's just whimpitude of the "how dare you hurt our extremely tender sentiments you imperialist" kind. Actually, I meant this debate. Wrong again, you Swiss person, you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ah, now I would just love getting my hands on a Swiss nationalist crank, that would pay for all the Indian and Persian soap opera. They exist, but thankfully for all RL purposes they are very rare. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Netherlands have produced at least one Wikipedian with a nationalism of the decidedly cranky kind, but that's a case resolved two years ago, with no sock armies come back to haunt us.

however, I sadly have the impression that our "Finnish" crank is in fact a Haryana expat. No Finn out to prove a "Finno-Ugric-Aryan" relation would pick Haryanvi in particular for the 'astonished fact' that 'the Nazis were right all along'. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

There are two issues of interest here, I think. 1, There has been a lot of vandalism here today (anti fluoridation TV show somewhere?), and 2, there is a talk page discussion about whether the page is "balanced". Cheers, Verbal chat 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article on the Main Page, which at least explains the vandalism (if not the talk page stuff). --Bfigura 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation is a contraversial topic within a relatively small sector of society, as are related topics such as fluoridated toothpaste. The article as it stands (and as was promoted to FA, for what little that is worth) acknowledges the controversies in line with WP:WEIGHT: it is mentioned, but it is not the main point of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hekate and Hekat

At Hecate, one editor thinks that "Hekat" should be given as an alternative name of the goddess in the lead sentence, based on 2 neopagan sources. Another editor thinks these are pretty poor sources on which to base the first sentence of an article about a Greco-Roman goddess. Input welcome at Talk:Hecate#Hekat. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Moreschi (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit

Mentioned above. Now in AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much fringe as fan-cruft for a few hard sci-fi stories but still agree that it should probably go. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jesus thing isn't hard sci-fi. Maybe fantasy... --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL True enough. Regardless, with the exception of the Jesus one-liner this isn't a fringe matter but it is an appropriate AfD matter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The deluxe model comes with a free tin-foil hat.   pablo_hablo. 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So far Icke has not been mentioned on this article. Let's hope it stays that way Pablomismo.Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't tempt me!   pablo_hablo. 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner‎

A fringe bio which is having a lot of back and forth. Mostly consisted of a dubious biography and dubious praise. The AfD seems to rely a lot on GHITS and his large "publication" record. Verbal chat 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the ever-entertaining accusations of bad-faith editing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

cross-post: nationalism and the wiki

For those interested, my recent post at WP:AN#Misplaced Pages and nationalism - this is not getting any better might be worth looking at. Moreschi (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shamanism

Please see the etymology section ]. I could not find any of the google book links the person mentioned. But I did check etymology ]. I tried to put the information there, but was reverted with what appears to be a WP:SPA in here: ]. I did a google books search and they mention the word as either Tungus and many sources relate it to the Sanskrit word. Also prominent Turkologist like Gerald Clauson are not sure if Tungus can be classified as Altaic. ]. Any help clarifying the etymology of this word is appreciated. Also I rather not edit that article, but the article requires some work. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More Turkophilic stuff. If they can come up with a reference in English which we can assess, it could be included as an alternate theory if shows any signs that there are non-Turks who give in some credence. Replacing the whole section is a no-go given the strength of the references backing the Tungus theory; claims that the latter is Turkic can remain in that article. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This was just vandalism. Roll it back, a brainless s/Tungusic word/Turkic word/ replacement, the editor didn't even bother to adapt the spelling šamán. It is a paragraph I wrote back in January. It was already somewhat deteriorated before the vandalism.

The article is already aware that the word made it into Turkic. If more detail on the history of the word within Turkic is added that would be fine, but is it too much to hope that the Turkic history of the word can be documented without vandalism to the non-Turkic content? --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and WorldNetDaily Books

I'm not sure this is the right venue and please feel free to move this to another venue if appropriate. A new editor named Islamrevealed (talk · contribs) (which is a bad sign from the get go) has been edit warring for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory published by WND Books about the Council on American-Islamic Relations on that organization's entry. The text he put in the lead originally read:

• CAIR is also the central subject of a book titled "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America", which was released by WND Books on October 15, 2009. Written by P. David Gaubatz, a former federal agent and U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and counterterrorism specialist, and Paul Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily, the book is reportedly an undercover expose that catalogs the ways in which CAIR carries out a "well-funded conspiracy to destroy American society and promote radical Islam".

I have reverted this editor twice and don't want to continue edit warring. In the current version the editor simply removed the name of the publisher and the description of the book from the inserted text as if that changes the fact that it is a fringe conspiracy theory published by a group with a known anti-Islamic POV. Some attention to this by others would be helpful.PelleSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The flap is all over the news, so I think an accurate version could be sourced to real news organizations. Try this one from Reuters, for example. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That reuters source is not reuters, it's PRNewsWire. WND Books does not, in my opinion, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They should not be used for statements of fact. If the publication of the book, or the book itself were notable, article about those events would be discussed in other, obviously reliable, sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights, redux

The issue of the Cyrus cylinder as a supposed charter of human rights has come up yet again on the Human rights article (summary version: Iranian nationalists and political figures claim that the CC is the world's first "human rights charter"; historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic). This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder, where the usual suspects are demanding that it be included. Some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in full flow! Now also starring on ANI! Essentially this is an old piece of the Shah's propaganda that our modern-day Iranian patriots are attempting to revive at a completely offtopic article. Moreschi (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion, for the record, is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. I have asked for intervention to block three disruptive editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why people are always so eager to discuss this yet another time? All that can be said about it has been said several times over. It's 1970s propaganda, certainly notable in its own way, but anachronistic in any discussion of the Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still going on and the three disruptive editors have been unblocked (regrettably, in my view). Some assistance would be appreciated; these people are nothing if not persistent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing, again

Fringe claims that staring at the sun is safe and can replace food and water continue to proliferate at sungazing. Outside input would again be welcome. Skinwalker (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were joking above. Having taken a look at the article, words fail me... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, smells good. Who needs bacon for breakfast when you have hot, burning retinas? --Nealparr 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The guru of sungazing, Hira Ratan Manek, has pictures of himself on his website which show that he has a chronic case of arc eye. I suspected a hoax until I saw that. Skinwalker (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a mess and there are some editors dedicated enough to inserting the fringe views I wasn't able to keep up on reverting the harmful misinformation. Thanks for the assist guys. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Passage meditation

This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's spam, advertising a 2008 book. We should also check out the merge target. Eknath Easwaran -- comes up with 74 google book hits, almost exclusively as author. Apparently next to no independent coverage, not even in bibliographies. Among the very rare instances of unrelated authors quoting Easwaran is Magic Power Language Symbol (2008), and The Aquarian conspiracy (1980). The only non-incidential coverage I can find is The making of a teacher: conversations with Eknath Easwaran (2006). However, this isn't independent, as it appeared with Nilgiri Press as the rest of Easwaran's books. Notability not established. --dab (𒁳) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says that his translations are critically acclaimed and certainly they are selling well. 50 titles available on Amazon. So I would like to hang on until we can find out if there was indeed praise for the translations. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nilgiri Press is run by Easwaran's own "Blue Mountain Center of Meditation". This is essentially self-published literature. Without reviews from notable independent sources this stuff has no place on Misplaced Pages. here we have some "critical acclaim" (listed without any publication details). Perhaps some of it can be used. "Critics" listed include Henri Nouwen, author of The Inner Voice of Love – Huston Smith, author of The World’s Religions – Wilson Library Bulletin – Yoga Journal – NAPRA ReView – Library Journal – Wisconsin Bookwatch – Spiritual Life – “Book Bag,” Marilis Hornidge, The Courier-Gazette – The Hindu – Holistic Health & Medicine – Cosmos – The San Diego Union – The Book Reader – Book News Previews, Burton Frye.

I tagged the Eknath Easwaran article, but this does not mean that I think it should be deleted. This just means that the current revision lacks sources establishing notability. It should remain tagged (not deleted) until such sources are added. The Passage Meditation article, however, can just be merged into the Easwaran one. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I don't think we're looking for any particularly serious or scholarly reviews, just an independent indication that he is a major author/translator in the "spiritually uplifting" genre. After all, we have quite comprehensive coverage of romantic fiction, read in similar quantities and for similar purposes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

of course. Any independent verification of the claim that 100k copies of the book were sold should be sufficient. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns that some refs may be misrepresented by some editors at this article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we have this under control. There is some WP:COI, but the editor is being collaborative about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Creationist edit-warring on Creation Ministries International

Creation Ministries International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Worst creationist POV problems:

• describing a film by CMI as "unbiased movie about Darwin's voyage"
• Stating that it "has anti-Creationists ranting"

Other problems detailed at Talk:Creation Ministries International#Unsourced POV additions. The POV is so extreme that it even has one of the creationist editors there criticising it. I've reverted, but am now coming up against WP:3RR. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help. Awickert (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting a neutrality tag on the article as well as general issues (for unrelated matters) in hopes it can catch a little more attention and I'll post on the talk page there. The film section doesn't feel right to me either, and if you look at the article for it specifically it directly contradicts the information in this article. The vast majority or resources listed are self-publication or links to the organization's own website. That's all from the outside that can be done reasonably... I'll link this discussion here on the talk page, also, hoping for more opinions. Datheisen (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver‎

Can some people please have a look at this article. Floydian (talk · contribs) apparently WP:OWNs this page, and is editwarring to his preferred version and engaging in personal attacks on other editors on the talk page. The dispute revolves around the alt med use of colloidal silver, and using in vitro studies of silver (not colloidal necessarily, or of the alt med treatments) to support the alt med section. A summary of the alt med evidence base is also being removed from the lead. More eyes and opinions required, I find it hard to engage with the level of vitriol directed at othhr editor though. Verbal chat 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone from this noticeboard is inherently NOT neutral. Keep it over at the NPOV noticeboard. I'm not claiming to own the page, but I am claiming that Verbal is misrepresenting others to get their own way. There is clearly not a consensus for Verbals selective cherry picking of sources in order to present only the negative studies in the lead. A clear violation of neutral point of view to remove several sources in order to swing the weight to the negative source in order to put only it in the lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian should read WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, remember that any editor can respond to issues raised on this noticeboard. It's true that most regular contributors are keen to see a mainstream scientific view predominate over anything that could be seen as pseudoscience, but there is also commitment to collegiate editing, to good sourcing and to policy generally. If you're also committed to those things then you can contribute here too. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a contributor. I don't often contribute since I do not know most pseudoscience, but I do contribute to those I do know about (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Homeopathy and this article). You are right that the great majority of regular contributors will have the mainstream view dominate the minority view. This means that they can quickly buddy buddy themselves together and overwhelm the minority or constructive editors who take to the opposing view. The summary that I removed was not the summary, it was a horribly worded piece of information from a source that I dispute the accuracy of that is intended to downplay the efficacy of a substance whose efficacy has not been tested. The summary need not include a contended piece of information when it can summarize everything else quite neutrally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 20:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what do you think an EM field is?Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An area that is being influenced/manipulated by wavelength energy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, try arguing the points through, referring to policy and to good sources. You will find that most experienced editors are fair-minded and that you can learn a lot from them. But accept that you will win some points and lose some. When consensus is against you give in - I know that's not always easy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL I've been shot down, despite being certain I was right on more than one occasion. You roll with the punches, shrug and go well that's the consensus model for you. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not new to the wiki process. I have created and built consensus many times before, often agreeing to disagree (Afterall, consensus is through compromise). These editors are not doing that, however. Its their way or the admin noticeboard for 3RR (Which is easy for them, again, as I'm far outnumbered). I'm sure I could go gather 50 people with my POV and brute force my views, but then I'd be a politician and not an editor. I still hold to the point that this is not consensus building, its brute forcing a point of view by grabbing everyone that agrees with you and creating a "consensus". WP:NOTAVOTE applies to consensus building, and I've made plenty of points to which the other editors mostly offer moot points or completely dodge the subject (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Rather than actually answer my points, they just accuse me of things (See File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg, most editors are on the yellow section). Simonm223 is perhaps the only editor with the opposite view of me that has actually sat and communicated properly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Misplaced Pages's biggest POV-push is up for an RFC again. It only violates half-a-dozen core policies, though, so I'm sure no real changes will happen. Shoemaker's Holiday 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet merciful atheismo, how did this survive 3 AfDs?!?!? Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The POV-pushers show up en masse to the discussions and shut them down. For instance, the second one was non-admin closed within hours citing WP:SNOW. Shoemaker's Holiday 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There could conceivably be such an encyclopedical list - debatable though. But the above article is nothing like a real WP list. That reminds me to go back to List of basilicas in France, which is a real WP list. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution